the planet does garbage founded in the environmental ethic and hunger to send less to landfills. this is so many wonderful things happening in san francisco. i feel very fortunate and very humble to live here and to be part of this wonderful place.

good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 30th, 2024 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor miranda melgar, chair of the committee. joined by board of supervisors president aaron peskin■7 and vice chair dean preston. the committee clerk today is john carroll. welcome, mr. john malamet. it's good to see you. i would also like to acknowledge, sus anos at sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? yes. thank you, madam chair. please ensure that you silence your cell phones and other electronic devices. you

have brought with you into the chamber today. if you have any documents to be included as part of the file, you should submit them to me. public comment will be taken on each of the three items on today's agenda. when your item of interest comes up in public comment is called, please line up to speak along the right hand side of the room. alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. first, you may email your written comments to me at j-o-h-n. period c a r r o l l at sfgov .org. or you may send your written comments via us postal service to our office in city hall. the address is one doctor carlton b goodlett place, room 244, san francisco, california 94102. if you submit public comment in writing, i will forward your comment to the members of this panel and also include your comments as part of the official file upon which you are commenting. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of october 7th. excuse me, october eighth unless otherwise stated. okay. thank you so much, mr. clerk. please call item number one. agenda item number

one is an ordinance amending the building code to excuse the requirement for professionally prepared architectural drawings for building permits, to change certain use designations that do not increase occupant load or occupancy class or include alterations and affirming the planning department's sequa determination. madam chair, we have a memo from your desk requesting this matter be agendized as a committee report and it may be sent for potential consideration by the board of supervisors on the agenda tomorrow for october first, 2024. thank you, mr. clerk. we are joined here today by our director of the office of small business. miss katie tang. welcome. great. good afternoon, supervisors and sfgovtv. we have a quick presentation. all right. thank you. so very quickly, the legislation before you today, which is sponsored by mayor breed, there are a couple of goals that we're trying to address here through the

legislation, you've heard of course, from many small businesses who want to experience an easier time getting through our city's permitting process and so this is designed to reduce some of those barriers as people are trying to get into a new storefront. namely, it would remove the costly architectural plan requirements under certain circumstances when there's a change of use and no construction being done to the space. and then lastly, we want to clearly define when building permits are required, when there's a change of use permit involved. so the legislation before you today in a nutshell, really again clarifies that when you're just going through a change of use process under the in particular the planning code, but there isn't a change in the occupancy classification under the building code, and there's no increase to the occupant load. and no construction being done. that you either. there will be certain scenarios where

you don't need to submit a building permit, and in some scenarios you would have to submit a building permit. however, you would be able to submit dimension drawings instead of plans completed by licensed architects. the legislation codifies an existing pilot program that has been in place for small businesses that have again undergone a change of use from producing architectural plans. so this legislation would codify that process. to date, roughly a dozen businesses have been able to go through this more simplified process without issue. the most common example that i'll describe for you is when there is, say, a limited restaurant under the planning code definition, and they want to add a liquor license to become a full restaurant. so it's a change of use under the planning code definition. they're not doing any construction. they're just going to run the restaurant as is, except that they will now have a liquor license. and previously we've had cases where those businesses were asked to produce

to submit a building permit application, along with architectural plans that can cost businesses a lot of time and money. to just even start the permitting journey. so again, we don't anticipate that there will be a lot of businesses that will even meet these requirements. but for those that will, it will be extremely helpful and save them thousands of dollars and quite a bit of time. so with that, that concludes the short presentation and happy to answer any questions. and also wanted to share that tate hannah from department of building inspection is here. as well. if you have any questions. thank you, director tang. i do have a couple questions. i think this is great, i wish we could actually expand it. so i have a business that's opening up on ocean avenue that is. you know, this would have been great for there too far down the path, but it was a storefront that was a billiards place that will now be

a child care. and, you know, they were required to do the architectural drawings cost him a lot of money. but the worst part about it is that the storefront had several existing violations of the building code, you know, and so they were required to do that first before they submitted the architectural plans to change the use. and then you know, so i'm wondering if this legislation addresses that at all or if it's something that is practice, maybe that this is more a question for dbi, because it seems it's like the double whammy of, you know, having to address the existing violations, which, you know, sometimes when you're changing, use the violation is a violation for the old use, but not for the new use, you know? so i'm wondering if that is something that we, you know, have thought about for this legislation or maybe in the future. yeah, i'll let dbi speak to that. but my understanding with all permitting is that in general,

you do have to correct any violations first before you proceed with the new proposed use. and that is true whether you're doing, say, an awning change or something else. and so i don't believe this legislation will not address that, that, process that dbi has in place. and again, i won't go into detail on that since i'm not part of dbi, but, with regards to changing from daycare or, i guess it was a billiards, a billiards parlor to child care, that will most likely require plans though, because of just, i think the occupancy change and the layout will most likely be very different compared to a billiard parlor to a child care. and so, for example, fire department and dbi will need to make sure that egress is appropriate and all of that. so in that case probably a plan set would be required. sure. i mean, like i said, they are very case by case specific. but my point

is, you know, this this particular storefront has been empty for a long time. and, you know, we do want to make it easier. and then also, child care is something that we desperately need. so it's just one example. but there are many others of, you know, storefronts that are a little bit older, and, you know, a change of use is a good thing, but it's like so difficult with our existing process. so thank you for doing this. i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, please. and i would love to work on it some more, you know, in the future to see if there's more things that we could address through something like this. thank you. great. thank you. supervisor. hi there, tate hannah, legislative affairs manager at dbi. so katie did describe correctly. when you have to pursue new actions or pursuing a permit, you do have to correct existing violations. it's one of

the tools that the department has to make sure that those building code violations do get addressed. we don't want a change of use taking place or for that place of business to then be opened up where those outstanding violations aren't addressed. and is that part of the code or is that practice that is in the code? where is that? i will have to get back to you on, will you please? yeah, absolutely. thank you. thank yo. okay. if there's no other comments or questions, colleagues, let's open this up for public comment. thank you, madam chair. land use and transportation will now hear public comment exclusively on agenda item number one related to these changes to the building code, please begin. good afternoon. okay. violation of what? since everything has been violated. sorry. so the mayor is irresponsible because she doesn't think critically. because she doesn't want to push the concept of responsibility and critical thinking. still, despite my numerous times where

i told you she should. so what are we violating here? obviously you don't want to build crap. you need to take care of safety. yes. for older buildings, no problem. now i hope you get the point. thank you for your comments. do we have anyone else who has public comment on agenda item number one? and if there are other folks, please line up to speak along that western wall of the room. i'm pointing it out with my left hand. next speaker, please. hello. land use committee thanks for having me, ben lyman. here i am, a commissioner at the entertainment commission, but i'm speaking on my own behalf today. i'm just speaking in support of this legislation. i've spent the better part of ten years trying to slowly find ways to make small businesses less expensive to run in the city, and this, though, is not a silver bullet. as we all know it will solve a problem that does affect many small businesses. and i just want to mention, too, that sometime in the last 5 or 6 years, the cost of doing these

architectural drawings is drastically gone up. i don't know if architects got wise to it tha nd them or what happened, but i used to get them for $1,500, and i'm getting quoted regularly at 8000 to $10,000 for a simple drawing right now, which is kind of crazy. so thank you for hearing me. thank you. next speaker, please. hi. my name is theresa douglas. i'm actually live in the community for about 50 years now in the south of market. i just want to make sure that this is really for small businesses, okay? and it's not for any developer because it becomes a loophole, you know, for developers. so i just want to make sure, you know, when you vote on this, please think about, you know, that the language can be changed and the language is there and can become a loophole. and it's tiring, you know, to actually to actually, know and learn about these developers and they say, oh, okay, you know, we're going to we're going to have like a park for you, you know, to actually have people, you know, visit,

but actually, no. right. and then just to make sure, you know, that this is actually for small businesses. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments. do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number one? madam chair. okay. public comment on this item is now closed, i would like to make a motion that we, move this forward with a positive recommendation as a committee report. on the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended as a committee report. vice chair preston preston, a member. peskin, a, peskin i chair. melgar i. melgar i. madam chair, there are three eyes. okay. that motion passes. thank you. mr. clerk, will you please call item number two? agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code to provide that newly constructed dwelling units that first received a certificate of occupancy between june 13th, 1979 and november 5th, 2024 shall be generally

subject to rent control to the extent authorized by a future modification or repeal of the costa-hawkins rental housing act and making certain changes to clarify existing law regarding rent control exemptions under costa-hawkins. thank you, mr. clerk. president peskin, thank you for introducing this item. the floor is yours. thank you. so as we have as i spoke about at the board of supervisors, this ordinance will guarantee that rent control will be expanded to nearly all renters and multifamily buildings in san francisco, completed up until november 5th of 2024, and would go into effect automatically when state preemption is lifted, which could happen as soon as this year. if californians pass the justice for renters act proposition 33 on this november's ballot. and i'd like to thank supervisor preston for his close cooperation and creation of this measure and early co-sponsorship by supervisors. chan ronen, and

walton, this ordinance will deliver stable housing and freedom from arbitrary price increases and price gouging to roughly 100,000 san francisco renters who are denied their rights by this outdated state law. the costa-hawkins act. this law intentionally does not affect the law that i am proposing. new housing development in any way whatsoever. instead of theoretical arguments, i say we put our money where our mouth is and take action to extend equal protection to all multifamily housing already built. the debate between housing rights and housing construction, i think, is a totally flawed and manufactured debate and is frankly, a distraction. there is reason that support for capping unfair rent increases is the new national policy of democratic presidential nominee, our former da kamala harris and the national democratic party because our party leaders understand that renters need relief from inflation, protection from price gouging,

and that everyone deserves stable housing and stable communities. too many people are being forced out onto the streets because of arbitrary rent increases. and if we want to address our homelessness problem in san francisco and other cities, this is a part of that solution. if anybody has any technical questions as to chapter 37 of the administrative code, if i cannot answer them, or supervisor president cannot answer them, we have senior administrative law judge from the rent board, joey kumis here, and i have some non-substantive amendments to correct the 1979 date on page one, line four, and line 22, and on page four at line four, which are non-substantive. and i will distribute to you colleagues, but you can just see that they clarify the language around the date of june 13th, 1979, which

is the last date by which units in san francisco are under rent control. thank you. supervisor preston. thank you. chair melgar, and thank you, president peskin, for taking the lead on this, proud to be an early co-sponsor. and i think you've summed up well what the reasons that we need this, i just wanted to add a little bit of just from my experience, having counseled probably not hundreds, but thousands of tenants, both those with and those without rent control, and i think we often talk about the importance of rent control, its primary purpose in terms of creating greater stability and preventing rent gouging and huge rent increases, but the other thing that is, is often less noticed is this the system of protections that rent controlled

tenants have, that units that tenants in units that are exempt from rent control do not have. and it's and it's really significant and tenants in you know you can have two buildings next to each other in san francisco. you can have one building that has the set of protections, the other building that doesn't. and i'm always asked like, why is that? and people, you know, those of us who do this work are understand state preemption. the costa-hawkins law. we understand the real estate money, the special interests that led to that state preemption. but for someone living in one of these buildings, it just doesn't make any sense. you know, you're in a building that was built in 1983 decades ago, and somehow you don't have any of these protections that that your neighbor next door does. it's a completely arbitrary law. there is no policy justification whatsoever for that to continue. and your ordinance addresses this if and when and at the moment when that state law changes, however, it changes, whether by prop 33 passing or by

a new legislature this year, or a future one repealing costa-hawkins. so but i did want to just focus on the tenants who are in a non rent control unit. they don't have recourse against rent increases that outpace inflation significantly. they don't have recourse against unregulated passthroughs. so it's not just about rent. it's also that there's no process by which to govern. how much of utilities, capital improvements, operating and maintenance costs, other costs, how those are passed through. and a landlord with a tenant, a building that that is exempt from rent control? there are no limits on those kind of increases. tenants in buildings without these protections, lack the ability to access the rent board for rent reductions. when the landlord

fails to make repairs or fails to do hold up their end of the transaction and their only recourse is, in theory, to go to court, which is very costly and difficult to do. so, rent control tenants can access the rent board for that kind of relief. non rent control tenants cannot. non rent control tenants are also subject to unilateral modifications of their terms of tenancy, which is prohibited for rent control tenants. so in other words removing it's often instead of a rent increase landlord will simply start taking away services as a way to drive someone out, remove their storage unit, their bike parking, their car parking, all those kind of things. non rent control tenants have no protections against that and both landlords and tenants in exempt buildings have don't have access to the free counseling and assistance and the mediations that the rent board offers to resolve disputes that arise. so i just really just

wanted to add that context for everyone. that is obviously everyone deserves rent control protections to protect, protect against rent increases, but it's also a whole system of support that should be offered to tenants, to every tenant in an apartment in san francisco. and this ordinance goes as far as we can go, i think, to doing that, basically as soon as the state law changes. so i think it is definitely time to end this two tiered system that we have in san francisco, forced on us by state law, where residents of, as i said, neighboring buildings can have wildly different rights. it's time to expand rent control to all buildings built after 1979. and this is a major step in that direction. thank you. thank you. supervisor, before i let you go again, president peskin, i just wanted to say that i agree with everything my colleague,

supervisor preston, said, and i would like to duplicate this file, please. actually, you know what? i'll duplicate it after the amendments. are made, because they're they're small. i have this gives me pause. i'm not. i have to tell you, i'm not ready to vote on this. and it's not because of the things that you just talked about, supervisor preston. it is because of section 415 of our planning code. so i so you know, after 1995, before, supervisor leno introduced the inclusionary ordinance in 2002, we played around with this concept of inclusionary zoning and had a bunch of development agreements with some buildings where inclusionary zoning was included in the deeds. reflect that, then it was, you know, codified in,

you know, what was then section 315, and, you know, we had the palmer decision, our inclusionary, program is based on a nexus study that, crunched the numbers about impact and what we got out of it. i am not sure what this does to that structure. it may be that you can convince me that it does nothing, because today the units are at market. but i think that the structure of the program is something i don't want to risk. it's big. it's a big deal. i don't think that it's something that i'm going to enter into lightly or without deliberation. and so i am just not ready to support this today. but like i said, i'd like to duplicate the file in whichever way this goes. i think we need to put a little bit more work into it. thank you. so before and this may be

part of your 415 answer, but i think that it's also important to point out that the condominium and single family home exemption that exists in chapter 37 is maintained here, and i know the real estate industry is spending heavily against prop 33, arguing that expanding rent control will hurt home values of single family homes and condominiums. and this ordinance continues to be crafted in a way that really runs contrary to that wrong argument. this ordinance, by the way, does clarify that the condo exemption is to be narrowed to only to condos that are sold to a single owner to around the condo mapping loophole where somebody maps the entire building and then uses that as a loophole to get around rent control. but joey, maybe you can

respond to the bmr unit issue that chair melgar is raising. good afternoon, joey coombs. on behalf of the rent board. so, you know, generally san francisco's rent ordinance exempts three categories of units from rent control. and that is single family homes and condominiums, kind of regardless of when they were built, any type of deed restricted affordable housing, any housing, which is subject to a different form of rent, government rent regulations, regardless of when it was built. and then the third category is basically properties built after 1979 under all other kind of, you know, categories. so presumably the second category that addresses supervisor melgar. so even if you eliminate the exemption for properties built after 1979, the exemption for government regulated units would survive.

there are two separate exemptions. one doesn't impact the other. forgive me. that wasn't exactly what i was talking about. so i know what you're. you just said, my issue is that the nexus study looks at the costs. if, you know, having calculated that already and, you know, codified it into the deed, we superimpose rent control on top of that, it will you know, change the numbers. and is that okay? i don't know, because today it is market. i don't know what it does to the numbers going forward. and this is not quite a rent control or rent board question. it's more a planning department question or perhaps city attorney because it's, you know, to the heart of what the calculation is of the nexus. studying in that particular building, in what's codified in the deed restriction for that building. so it is not about the individual units or, you know, whether or not they fit into the regulatory

environment of the rent control. it's the juxtaposition of both. so if those units are currently subject to some sort of affordable housing deed, restrictions that expire at some point, at which point they become market for 90 years. so so, so between. so that's my point between 1975 and two. and after 2002, you know, each of those has a 90 year. but it goes with the building. right. and there's a certain percentage that the mayor's office of housing calculated as to what percentage it is, based on the nexus study that we did. so i'm just raising the questions. i don't have the answers, but it's enough of a question for me that it gives me pause into, you kno, what you're suggesting. so okay. thank you. okay i'm at some point when this leaves the committee, we can have this conversation, but the inclusionary housing scheme is a

function of area median income. right. we say you have to build 10% or 12% or whatever of your units at an average of 80% of ami, which is very different than rent control, which basically says you can rent at whatever the market bears. and then you can have the allowable annual rent increases. and what i believe the second exception from rent control in the administrative code, chapter 37 says, is that any of these bmr units are not subject to the act because they're subject to this other regulatory scheme under the planning code, section 415. as we amend it from time to time, and recently did to bring the inclusionary percentage down. so i just don't see where

the point of interaction is. but we need not belabor it here. sure. yeah. okay supervisor preston i'll, i will belabor it just for a second because to try to because i think, i think what you're getting at and correct me if i'm wrong is less about the inclusionary units that are actually the ones that, you know, as mr. coleman says, are exempt categorically. but i think your your question gets at whether there's an issue more broadly when you set aside a certain percentage of units as inclusionary, where you can also layer on the other units rent control protections. and what i would say on those and, and, obviously leave it up to the city attorney either here or privately with you to advise on this, but i will give you my not advising the city, but expressing supervisor preston's opinion, having done this work for a long time, is that that's kind of the same argument that was used to challenge rent control at the time rent control passed. was that the landlords argued, we have a set of

properties that exist, and you are changing the rules on our properties. and they raised challenges repeatedly that the courts rejected. and rent control has been upheld in california, including new rent control laws that have passed as recently as, you know, in, in in richmond, in mountain view and other cities, which i think raised the same issue you're raising because that was kind of the challenge those who were who were, who were bringing these claims were saying, you're applying rent control to existing properties that we have financed in a certain way, and somehow that that was either a taking or unfair to do. and those and, and those challenges have been struck down. so i think i think that for similar reasons, we're on pretty solid ground applying to the to the existing housing stock. the only barriers. costa-hawkins. yeah, no. and i understand and i remember, you know, that those

concerns and the discussion. but i think that this is intrinsically different because it is something that was created by government action. and i also think that, you know, the inclusionary program is valuable in and of itself. i don't want to like, imperil it. so i again, i'm not you know, saying i'm against it. i just, you know, i'm being cautious and i do i would, i would think that we would warrant more discussion because it's something that we have been at the at for since 2002, and there's a whole regulatory infrastructure with it that i, you know, i just don't want to break anything. so. okay with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please, mr. clerk. thank you, madam chair. land use and transportation will now hear public comment on the agenda item number two, related to new construction exemptions from rent control. if you have public comment for this item exclusively, please come forward to the lectern and i'll start

your time. yes. i think the general idea is good rent control. it makes perfect sense, right? but it's very complicated. it should be. the more you own buildings, the less you'll be able to ask for a higher rent. you see, if you are not happy, you sell your buildings. that's the way it should be. after you define. it's complicated. no matter what. sir, i'm talking to you. i think. you see, don't be shy. just be specific. see? that's i. because it's enough of. you see? like we do this. do that. it becomes so complicated. you can't extricate what you want to do. i think the intention is good. that's my take. thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker. please good afternoon supervisors. my name is anne and i am a tenant counselor at the south of market community action network. i am here to express my strong

support to expand rent control in san francisco. if costa-hawkins is repealed, one of our clients had this experience and allow me to share their story. they lived in their rent controlled home for 40 years, and when his parents passed away recently, the landlord increased the rent to an amount that they could not afford. the sudden death in their family was a great blow, and the rent increase was another major problem for them to deal with losing his parents and potentially losing their home due to the massive rent increase has placed the family in its most vulnerable, vulnerable state. costa-hawkins drives up the price of housing for everyone in our city. we need to deliver stable and equitable housing for all of our families in san francisco. i urge you to stand with the renters of the city and support the expansion of rent control to create an equitable and sustainable housing for all. thank you very much. thank you for sharing your comments. let's have the next speaker, please. good afternoon supervisors. my name is zachary freel. i'm a d5 resident and i also work at san can. this election season real

estate and landlord groups have spent over $50 million spreading disinformation that expanding rent control will kill the construction of new housing. yet several studies have proven that rent control has no impact on new construction. in fact, from 1996 to 2005, the decade after costa-hawkins was passed, cities in the bay area with rent control built 1.8 times more housing per resident than cities without rent control. as a tenant serving organization, samkin knows the impact of costa-hawkins on our communities, and i'd like to highlight three of those costa-hawkins increases rent for everyone because costa-hawkins bans vacancy control when a tenant moves out or is displaced from a rent controlled unit, landlords can raise rents to unaffordable rates. two costa-hawkins results in more landlord harassment and evictions because our city's rent stabilization ordinance limits the amount a landlord can increase, rent per year grew up landlords try to harass and evict tenants from the unit so they can charge higher rents to the new tenants, and three costa-hawkins harms families. many multigenerational families live in rent controlled housing.

however, if a family member listed on the lease passes away or wants to move out, the landlord can increase rent for the next family member who takes over the lease. this can happen even if the family member has lived in the unit for a long time. this legislation has one crucial step towards protecting all renters in our city. renters deserve strong tenant protections and they deserve to continue living in this city without fear of excessive rent increases. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments. let's have the next speaker, please. hi, my name is william palmer. i represent a lot of people who are reentering society from incarceration and other challenging situations. rent control is not only affecting over 100,000 renters, but it's affecting those who are learning how to live in san francisco all over again, when we talk about

stability in housing, when we talk about affordable housing, when we're talking about the most marginalized and displaced members of our, our city, especially those of african american descent, rent control is a way to stop gentrification. it's a way to stop us from being moved out into other cities where we are born. and raised in san francisco, and those who are adopted san francisco as their home. so i urge you, especially if you're not a renter, to really be in the shoes of those of us who do rent and pass this, i appreciate it. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker. please hello, supervisors. molly goldberg with the san francisco anti-displacement coalition. we represent dozens and dozens of tenants serving organizations in san francisco, and every single one of them will tell you that every week someone comes into one of their clinics with a story like what anne shared,

with a story of a tenant who's been living in their unit for decades. but because it was built after 1979, is facing an exorbitant rent increase that will push them out of their hom, either in or out of the city, into homelessness, into overcrowded and unsafe situations. these rent increases are a massive impact not just on the individual households, but on the entire fabric of our community that the people who have been living in these units for decades, are part of when they're pushed out, so and i think i just, i want to really when rent control was passed, rent control units represented more than 90% of the units in san francisco. we are now down to, i think below 70%, of the housing stock being rent contro, and that 20% has not been replaced with inclusionary units. i want to be very clear there. right. so we the, the, the 80 some the more than 80,000

units that are not covered by rent control because of the preemptions at the state level that were pushed by the real tate industry when they could not repeal costa-hawkins, when they could not repeal rent control, they went to costa-hawkins as a sort of second tier. and we know that, those 80,000 something units have people in them that we want to see stay in the city that we care about being part of the fabric of our community. and this is such a common sense, adjustment to our local authority that we'd like to see move forward. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith, on behalf of the housing action coalition, also a rent control tenant living in san francisco, unfortunately, here to oppose this legislation as president, peskin obviously correctly stated this does not apply to new construction. this is only things retroactive that have already been built. but

given this board has previously introduced legislation that would apply rent control to all new housing, the general belief is that would then be the next step and that would overall just have a cooling impact on the ability to get projects financed and actually built here in san francisco as you all know, it is more expensive to construct housing today than it is valued at when it's done. so the entire housing market is affectionately stopped here in the city. and this would just add to that, a few years ago, then assembly member david chiu passed a bill that did create a statewide system that we were able to cap unnecessary and oftentimes quite frankly, insane increases on rents. and that's an absolute step in the right direction. right to council is something that we've always firmly supported in the past, supervisor preston, you were talking about additional resources that should be available to people who are not just rent control tenants. 100% agree we should make sure that those options and those resources beyond legal

representation are always available to renters, regardless if they live in rent control, housing or not, speaking with builders, though, i actually do think that there is a way to sort of thread the needle on this. most housing gets financed over a 30 year period. that's kind of like the length of a basic mortgage for the builder that needs to borrow money to build, so that 30 year rolling rent control measure, where all housing becomes rent control after 30 years, is something that we would support because it does not impact the financing of new housing, and it allows us to create these additional protections, which i benefit. last, previously, the mayor had made a commitment to veto any anti housing legislation that comes before her. i think that this is one thank you. time has concluded. thank you for sharing your comments. next speaker, please, good afternoon everyone. my name is ian hewitt, i am a renter in district nine and a student at san francisco state university, i'm here on behalf of our student body to express my support for the expansion on

rent control. if costa-hawkins is repealed, at its core, rent control is about protecting our communities from the growing housing crisis, as you are all aware, california has some of the highest housing costs in the nation, and many of our neighbors are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. renters need local governments to implement rent control measures that meet the needs of their residents, without being handcuffed by real estate lobbies and developers imposing restrictions. rent control isn't just a policy, it's a lifeline for families, seniors and low income residents who are being priced out of their homes. and if, if and when costa-hawkins were repealed, we can give the local government, such as ours, the flexibility to enact protections that can keep communities intact and ensure housing remains affordable for everyone, our opponents argue, incorrectly that rent control will stifle development, but the truth is that unchecked rent increases are driving more people into homelessness. this offers us with the chance and opportunity to strike a balance, encouraging fair rents for working class citizens while allowing cities to address

unique needs of their housing markets. this is a chance to keep families in their homes to prevent displacement and ensure that california, there's a place where everyone has the right to live. we, the renters, deserve better. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors. charlie shamas with the council of community housing organizations in san francisco. our strategies to tackle the housing affordability crisis have always been the three p's producing new housing, preserving existing multifamily housing, converting it to rent, stable rent, to price restricted housing and then protection of tenants. and we understand that we have to advance all three strategies and they have to work together. capping unfair rent increases is a policy that is a common sense solution that has been supported by our state legislators in san francisco, however, we have a patchwork of loopholes in our tenant protections, and that leaves roughly 100,000 residents unprotected from massive rent increases. in fact, over 86,000

units do not have rent stabilization simply because they were built after 1979, when state preemptions are lifted, this legislation would better equalize rent stabilization across san francisco buildings and neighborhoods. it would deliver stable, stable housing and freedom from arbitrary price gouging. this legislation, as we've heard, does not affect new housing development, so it would have no dampening effect on the city's progress in meeting our overall housing production goals. so it is in the spirit of this third p protections that i'm here to express support for this ordinance. rent control is a critical tool in our in our toolbox, and we cannot afford to leave it on the table. thank yo. thank you for your comments. next speaker please. good afternoon. i just wanted to say, as a native and a born raised here for over six decades, that none of my family and none of my classmates have been able to stay in the city. so rent control needs to be expanded to an extreme in every regard. and

i thank supervisors preston and peskin for the work you've done in that regard. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. calvin welch, housing and land use chair of the haight-ashbury neighborhood council, the board of the council unanimously endorsed the version of the legislation as introduced today. and i would urge you to pass this version as amended. it is important to understand that rent control is the only control the city and county has on market rate housing. let me say that again. it's the only control on market rate housing. we are the first or second most expensive market rate development city in the united states. if the current belief of the administration of

this city is that if we increase density, we are the second most dense city in the united states, we will automatically, by charging the market with greater profits, somehow magically create affordability. it will not happen if density alone was the answer. san francisco and new york would be the two cheapest housing markets in the nation, as they are the most dense. it is the exact reverse. we need controls on market rate, development and market rate. housing in san francisco or we will no longer have a san francisco made up of san franciscans. it's that simple. rent control is the only meaningful control able to be

enacted at the local level to control the ever escalating costs of market rate housing. i strongly urge you to pass this ordinance. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments. next speaker, please. hi. it's me again. my name is theresa douglas. so i've lived here in the south of market for 50 years and, i've known some people who've left and a lot of our, our, my friends actually had left the neighborhood because it was too expensive or they were being harassed or they're being bought out. and my son, who actually wants who lives in hayward, he wants to come back, but he's afraid, knowing that, you know, that buildings were built, that, after 1979, had no rent control. so, i really urge you, i really urge you to pleas, expand, the rent control, i, i

support this. thank you so much. thank you for sharing your comments. let's have the next speaker, please. hello. christine evans, i am wearing a couple different hats, i, as a san franciscan who wants to see people of all incomes live in san francisco, artists, people that contribute a lot to our society in terms of caregivers, caregivers, people that enrich our society, restaurant workers that deliver amazing customer service. i just wanted to say that, you know, in the 16 years that i've owned a small business in san francisco, i've seen our employees typically on haight street, making between 40,000 and $70,000 a year, 40 to 70% of am. i always in a situation where they're becoming more and more rent burdened, that they're

getting more and more often displaced, that small businesses struggle to keep and retain these talented people because of just the skyrocketing rents that are pressuring them out of the city? and it's over that 16 years that i've owned a small business, that i've seen you know, the shape of who of the landlords are also changed. it's no longer mom, small mom and pop pop, you know, landlords. it's becoming these large mega corporations that are taking over these buildings along haight street that are buying up properties that had, rent control building. and then the new construction, obviously, are these large corporate interests that are building these large scale buildings. we really need to make sure that we have rent control in place to ensure the stability, so that when people are making their life here in san francisco, that they're not pressured to leave the city, when the landlord decides that they can get a little more rent and do insane, price increases, that really, are above and

beyond the cost of living increases. so thank you. so much. wearing my small business forward hat, our group of merchants support, in increasing rent control protections. thank you so much. thank you for sharing your comments. let's have the next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm mitchell berg with the affordable housing alliance and the san francisco anti-displacement coalition, i just i think i want to make two points. the first is that this ordinance has nothing to do with new construction. this ordinance is about buildings that have been constructed. it has nothing to do with new construction. i mean, it just does not, the second point, and this is a little bit to supervisor melgar's point. you know, i think about two groups of tenants in san francisco. the first group is under rent control. rent stabilization. the second group that's in stuff

that was built after june 13th, 1979. the ones in those buildings, the majority of them, the ones that are not lucky enough to live in a in a bmr unit created by exclusionary zoning. they all those people, the ones under rent control and the ones not have one thing in common. and that is they all rented the place where the rent was set by market when they moved in, they all paid market rent. when they moved in. but the difference is, is that the people who moved in to build places that were built after a certain date have no predictability. they basically have no just cause eviction because their rent can be raised any amount at any time. so they don't get any of those protections. and there's tens of thousands or maybe 100,000 of them. and there's i just don't see it's irrational to say that those people shouldn't have the predictability of rent increases linked to rising expenses and

inflation and such that there are other compatriots do. so. i hope you support this initiative. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments. let's have the next speaker. please hi. good afternoon. my name is carla. i am a community organizer and i'm a resident of district seven. i am also a renter and i'm here to really ask you to please vote on this ordinance. i have been a volunteer at a student run clinic in the mission, since i was a junior in college, and we see the city's most vulnerable patients. we see the city's workers, the ones who are out there at restaurants, who are merchants on the streets and time and time again, we hear patients describing the fact that they cannot stick to their treatment plans, they cannot focus on their children's education because they are working multiple jobs to make ends meet, to pay the rent. and this is completely unfair. our city's fabric is built up of

these people. and the fact that so many of our parents, in the, in the city, are talking about how they can't afford the rent. it's so sad. and students pick up on this. students then can't focus on school. so this is really a huge issue. and i really ask that you please vote on this ordinance. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please. and if there's anyone else who has public comment for this item from whom we have not yet heard, you may line up to speak along that western wall, good afternoon supervisors. my name is charlie goss, and i work on government affairs at the san francisco apartment association. we are here before you today to object to this anti housing proposal. while we acknowledge that many members of the board wish to expand our local rent control ordinance, doing so right now in the form of this ordinance, without properly studying the impacts on the development of new housing is bad. anti-housing policy that will effectively stop new

housing development opportunities, new housing developments from being created. it will make it all but impossible for san francisco to meet its housing goals and mandates. if costa-hawkins is repealed or amended. when the city understood that it needed to revise its inclusionary housing requirements in order to get housing built, it convened a technical advisory committee involved analysis from the comptroller and the city economist, and over a period of several months studied what the appropriate inclusionary rate should be in order to strike the right balance and find an inclusionary rate that would help ensure that new housing would still be developed. now, this legislation to expand rent control to all existing buildings is being pushed through in the middle of campaign season, without any study or analysis as to how the development of new housing would be impacted. we've seen what overly aggressive rent control policies do to cities like berkeley, santa monica and west hollywood. economists agree that these policies stop new housing

from being built and reduce investments in upgrading the existing housing stock. this legislation will stop the housing production that san francisco desperately needs. as supervisors, you can be pro rent control and pro tenant and still reject this anti housing proposal. if costa-hawkins is repealed by the voters or amended by the legislature, the board should take its time and do its due diligence with plenty of public input and actual economic analysis, in order to thoughtfully consider if and how san francisco should expand local rent control in the absence of that pro housing, pro tenant supervisors must reject this ordinance. today's time is concluded. thank you for your comments. do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two? madam chair? okay. president peskin, thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the members of the public that spoke. let me right now for the record, absolutely reject the narrative of the

large landlord and real estate industry because they are creating a boogeyman that absolutely does not exist by design in this legislation. this legislation proposes something that is very simple and very elegant to move up the new construction date, but not to touch new development. so you can create that narrative, but it is absolutely a false narrative. and so to call this anti housing policy is absolute hogwash. and numerous studies have found that rent control has no discernible impact on new development because rents still increase and landlords actually have a right to a profit. but even so, this does not touch new development. so let's dispose with that. absolutely false narrative. and madam chair, i would like to make a motion to include the non-substantive amendments that i described earlier that clarify the june

13th, 1979 date. it is just a small wording change. it does not substantively change the ordinance. it is at page one in the long title at line four. that changes the date from june 13th to june 14th, 1979 at line 22, which says which was june 13th, 1979, instead of on or after june 13th, 1979, and on page four, to strike the words at line three and four that says on or after. so it just reads june 13th, 1979. and then i would like to have a vote to send that item with recommendation as amended, to the board of supervisors. okay. i will close public comment first on this item. public comment is now closed, can we

take it in two separate motions? one to amend. supervisor preston, i'm sorry. go ahead please. supervisor preston, but can we take it in two different motions? yes. okay thank you. chair melgar, and thanks to everyone who gave their public comment. i want to emphasize the point that president peskin made, that the law before us does not even apply to new construction. and i will just note that anti-rent control real estate industry lobbyists say that every attempt to assist tenants in virtually any way, certainly right to counsel, certainly any limits on rent, is somehow going to stop new construction. that is what is argued in every city council across the state when they're thinking of adopting rent control, even when they're not adopting rent control on anything built after 1996, the industry talking point, the california association of realtors, california apartment association, locally housing action coalition in san francisco, apartment association in san francisco, association of realtors here, and their counterparts in every city across the state will show up

and claim that even laws to apply rent control to properties back in the in the 90s, built in the 90s, somehow stops new construction. it's nonsensical. it's inaccurate. as my colleague has pointed out, the there's no correlation between passing rent control and limiting new construction, and certainly not with a law that doesn't even touch new construction. but a couple of other quick points. one, and this is just a comment on this, every time it comes up, because this like propaganda, the way it works is when we don't confront it. so this describing this as an anti housing proposal, i just want to explore like what does that actually mean. because i think the position being advanced that is that it is pro housing to allow a 10% rent increase on a family when the inflation rate

in a given year is 2%, that is, that is according to the industry lobbyists, that is the supposedly pro housing position. and i just want to, you know, sit with that for a second because this pro housing anti housing has become so absurd that folks could, with a straight face, come into public comment in these chambers and say it is anti-housing to actually limit the rent increases on existing buildings really makes no sense. and then finally, i want to also comment on this because it comes up again, not just here in san francisco, but in in jurisdictions across the state. every time costa-hawkins repeal. is on the ballot or in the legislature every time it's on the verge of maybe happening suddenly industry lobbyists appear. they talked to media and they come into these chambers

and say, you know what? we really could do that we'd be fine with is a 15 year or a 30 year rolling date. and what they mean by that is saying that everything built up to a certain, you know, 30 years ago is covered by rent control, and you just keep rolling that date. or some people propose a 15 year or a ten year. but what's interesting is they propose that in public over and over. we heard it today like we'd be fine with the 30 year rolling date. ask yourself why there is no 30 year rolling date in costa-hawkins, and it is because the same interests that come and tell the media and tell policy makers, just like we'll work together, we'll have these rolling dates are the same folks who are working behind the scenes to make sure that costa-hawkins is never amended to allow the coverage of even one more unit in california. and if we think that and i was one of these state tenant advocates, but there are plenty of them out there. the folks, the good folks

working at organizations like ace and tenants together and other organizations have, of course, thought of the idea of, wouldn't it be great to actually get the industry on board for some sensible reforms and even talk about things like rolling dates? it never happens, and it only comes up when costa-hawkins repeal is on the verge of happening. so i will just say take those offers with a grain of salt or if they're real, i would invite some of our industry lobbyist friends to go to sacramento and back a bill. i'm sure senator wiener would work with you. back a bill that makes these kind of changes that you're willing to make to costa-hawkins. but it's been decades, and the industry has made very clear that they will not back any adjustments whatsoever to costa-hawkins. but all that said, i fully support what's before us. and again, it doesn't impact new construction at all and it will bring much needed relief to tens of

thousands of tenants here in san francisco, president peskin. yeah just two things. one is i just want to tell you a story about a friend of mine who lived in the neighborhood, and actually left town, moved back to town. this was a few years ago, and it was paying not inexpensive rent, like $3,300 a month. had a one year lease. and at the end of that one year, in an up market, his landlord said, if you want to stay here, it's now $5,000 a month. he left san francisco. that is the kind of stuff that has been happening that just totally destroys neighborhoods. i mean, it is absolutely insane. one greedy, you know, landlord. and by the way, no, no secret. i'm a small landlord with rent control properties in san francisco. i'm able to service my debt and maintain my place. and it, you know, cash flows. i'm not getting rich off of it, but it's i'm creating a stable community and it works for me and it works for my tenants. this is i mean,

the notion that this is anathema to some makes absolutely no sense. and interestingly enough, i fully expected the industry to come in and say we can work with you on a rolling basis. why don't you set the date at 2014 instead of 2024? not a word. one written piece of opposition to this from corey smith that said, we don't like this vote no, no, no attempt by the industry to negotiate because what supervisor preston said is just right. their secret agenda is do not extend it to a single unit. after june 13th of 1979. and you want to know what that's worked for them for 54 years, 55 years. but it's time to change that. and that's what this legislation does. this legislation is actually akin to something that the late, great phil burton did in the 1970s, which is he stuck a rider in a department of defense bill that said, if the

third army ever left the presidio, it would become a national park. and i want to vote on this right now, and hopefully prop 33 will pass. but at some point, this terrible costa-hawkins act will be repealed or will be substantially amended, and this will be on the books. okay i think i have said what i have to say about this issue, let's call the first motion, please, a motion from member peskin that the ordinance be amended. vice chair preston preston, a member peskin, a peskin i chair. melgar i. melgar i madam chair. there are three i's. before we vote on the next motion, can we please duplicate this file? and i guess i will make the motion after we vote on the next one to continue it to the call of the chair. member peskin also offered a motion that the parent ordinance be recommended as amended. on

that motion, vice chair preston preston, i member peskin i, peskin i chair. melgar. no. melgar. no. madam chair. there are two i's and one no. with yourself in the dissent. okay. and i would like to make a motion that we continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair. on the motion offered by the chair that the duplicated file be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair preston preston, i member peskin. member. peskin. i vote. peskin. i chair. melgar i. melgar i madam chair. there are three i's. okay. that motion passes. thank you. please call item number three. mr. clerk, agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the housing code to require r1 and r2 group buildings to maintain at least one existing elevator for residents use and affirming the planning department's determination under sequa, okay.

we have, lorenzo rosas here fro, supervisor stephanie's office. welcome. chair melgar and committee members peskin and preston for hearing this item today. my name is lorenzo rosas, and i'm here to present on behalf of supervisor stephanie regarding this ordinance that will help support long standing tenants in some of san francisco's most historic buildings. specifically, this ordinance fixes a loophole in our housing code by adding to section 713. this section currently states that quote buildings exceeding 50ft, which are required to have an operable elevator per the fire code, shall have at least one operating elevator for the residential occupants use. however, this section of the san francisco fire code that is being referenced is section 604 .5.5, which states quote, at

least one passenger elevator shall be maintained in working order and accessible for immediate use by the fire department at all times. importantly, the fire code section does not have a height threshold for maintenance of a passenger elevator as opposed to the housing code section. practically, what this discrepancy means is that this discrepancy in the code has led to a situation where owners of three and four storey buildings have been able to allow their elevators to go into disrepair, with no intention of fixing them, as is the reality with any elevator issues. this predominantly impacts mobility impaired and senior tenants. many of these tenants moved into their homes because the building had an elevator for residents, and they are now left stranded or struggling in their unit because the elevator is left indefinitely inoperable. it's critical that we fix this loophole, which will only apply to existing buildings and not new construction for three and four story apartment buildings, and help these mobility impaired tenants have recourse available to them when buildings are no

longer providing accessibility. as promised when they moved in today, the supervisor is asking for a motion to accept non-substantive amendments that would remove subsection c of the code change starting on page two, line 20, and add subsection d to the findings, this subsection c aims to ensure that good faith efforts at repair are not penalized by this code change. the supervisor recognizes that the majority of the three and four story buildings with elevators are some of the oldest in our housing stock, which means that these repairs of these elevators may require prolonged work timelines due to external factors like part manufacturing or labor shortages. following the introduction, however, the department of building inspection has assured us that the current code enforcement process takes good faith repair efforts into account. when handling the notice of violation processes. additionally, the department was concerned about the precedent that this subsection would set when enforcing other habitability. habitability concerns with

today's amendments, taking into account the code advisory committee and the building inspection committee, commission have recommended approval, and the department of building inspection has signed on to the addition of the findings. i have also confirmed with the city attorney's office, represented by deputy city attorney john marmot. here today, that these amendments are not substantive and can be made today. so thank you again, committee members, for hearing this item. i want to specifically thank supervisor peskin for his cosponsorship, deputy city attorney rob kapla for, in the city attorney's office for helping with the drafting of this legislation. and to jim heron, who is a constituent in district two and brought this issue to our attention. thank you. i'm here to answer any questions on behalf of the supervisor's office, and our office hopes to have your support. thank you. thank you. you better stay there. mr. mr. thank you, president peskin. thank you, madam chair. i too wanted to shout out jim heron as well as arnie lerner, who first brought this to my attention. and thank you to supervisor stephanie and

lorenzo, who took the laboring or and this is just totally common sense legislation that's just basically a, oversight in the code. and it's unfortunate that there are folks who don't do the right thing. and now we have to go amend the code to do it. but i am happy to move the amendments at page two to put in the additional finding and strike the unnecessary language in subsection or in section 713, subsection c. okay, supervisor preston, thank you, chair melgar. and thank you for the presentation and the work on this. and i had some concerns, but i think that the amendments actually address them. and just one thing i wanted to get clarity on because i've, i don't want there to be an implication that under the 50ft that a

landlord doesn't have an obligation to repair the elevators. and that was actually part of my concern with, with and i checked in with a number d they had a similar a similar concern. we don't want to be sort of creating new kind of exemptions almost, or excuses for the landlords. i just want to clarify that my understanding is correct. i this is targeting really so that dbi and the housing inspectors can cite the under 50ft buildings like they currently. it's about the citation not about because the broader issue of liability. i just want to be really clear. it's like people who own a building that's under 50ft still may have obligations under state law, you know, under negligence theories under their contracts and so forth to fix an elevator. and that issue is litigated all the time and should be if they're not, if they're not fixing. but i think what you're

trying to do here is target just this loophole in the in the housing code so that a housing inspector now can issue a notice of violation in the same way they can in the over 50 buildings. am i getting that right? that is the intent. and per what you have alluded to as well. and i can let t from dbi speak to it, but our our constituent that brought this issue to our attention had some concerns around state enforcement of it. and so we want to make sure that that tenant has recourse. and any tenant in this situation has recourse with the department of building inspection of san francisco in the code enforcement process, i will let tate speak. thank you. supervisor. yes. you're correct. currently, housing inspectors would not be able to issue a citation if that r1 or r2 building is under 50ft and had a elevator that's fallen out of repair, it would be able to just sit there. and this would allow us to cite those elevators and require and keep up with that

owner to make sure that they are operable specifically for the residents use. thank you. yeah i think because i know there's actually like pending cases on this stuff. so it's not the board wouldn't be changing the law overall on the obligations to repair an elevator. we'd be changing the housing code. so that the housing inspector can can issue that citation. and i think actually the amendments do perfectly address the concerns. i had. the only thing i just wanted to suggest as a possible friendly amendment to the amendment, if we're going to add findings and we're adding findings that sort of recognize why there may be prolonged timelines, i would love to add something on the on the which what i think is motivating this ordinance, which is on the hardship, you know, so it would as a friendly amendment offer that where we say the board of supervisors recognizes that would love to insert there, the lack of an elevator can create extreme hardship for residents,

especially those who are seniors or persons with disabilities. and then put the rest of it. so if we're if we're adding findings, we'd love to balance them out in that way. but that have to be approved as to form. no, no, it's a finding. okay. yeah. john millman from the city attorney's office through the chair. i mean, we'd have to prepare another ordinance that includes those amendments, but that sounds fine. i don't want to delay anything on this with this, but the findings don't have to be approved as to form. i'm just confirming that if it's a finding, correct. i mean, we'll just submit it after the. but we can read those words into the record and. great. yeah, yeah. codify them. you want to read those again? sure. inserting on to the amendment the new subsection d where it says the board of supervisors recognizes that inserting the following language, the lack of an, an elevator, i should say a functioning elevator, can create extreme hardship for residents,

especially those who are seniors or persons with disabilities. comma and. okay. thank you so much. please add me as a co-sponsor. and thank you to supervisor stephanie and president peskin for this item. and please add me as well. thank you. okay. thank you, let's go to public comment on this item, please. thank you, madam chair. land use and transportation will now hear public comment on agenda item number three. please come forward to the lectern if you have public comment for this item. hi, can you hear me? yes. kevin eisenstadt. i have i live in dean preston's, district, and i in a musser tower on at 350 turk between leavenworth and hyde. and next month will be my 16th year in san francisco. i

sold my greystone home in chicago, near the lake, moved out here, and initially lived at six, nine, five noe street. but as i'm now 64 years old, i thought, wouldn't it be nice not to have to do those hills? why don't i view? so i selected a 14 floor flat at 350 turk street, and though i've been reasonably happy with the property management, the elevators do go out. there's two elevators. i'm in a 16 story tower, and i'm on the 14th floor, as i mentioned, and just recently, both elevators were out. now, you know, i'm reasonably fit, but at 64. but there's many people that have bad knees. there's people that have walkers, strollers, bicycles, scooters, and to get everybody into one elevator was a hardship. but when both of the elevators went out, it was it was an absurdity, the both

elevators situation, the two elevators were out for almost a week, six days and almost just nearly seven days. the other elevator has been out since the since july. and i was so having gone from being a homeowner in chicago to being a renter here. and interestingly, and i'm sure you already know this, 80% of the housing stock here was built before 1980, and 60% of the renters are in rent controlled units. happily, rosser towers was built in 1964, so i am in rent control. i was really heartened to learn that because in chicago there is no such provision for renters, although speakers time is concluded that me that's right. thank you for sharing your comments. i didn't quite finish. we have two. i didn't realize there was a each speaker will enjoy the same two minutes. i didn't realize there was a time limit. well, i just wanted. next speaker please. is there another speaker? thank yo. okay. thank you. public comment

on this item is now closed, president peskin, did you you made a motion for amendments, right? i would like to incorporate the amendments that supervisor preston read into the record and move those changes to the findings at section d, as well as the removal of section 713, subsection c, on page two, and then send this item as amended, to the full board with a positive recommendation. on the motion offered by member peskin to amend the ordinance and then send the board to send the ordinance, as amended, to the board of supervisors on that motion, vice chair preston preston, i. member peskin i, peskin i chair melgar i. melgar i. madam chair, there are three eyes on each. okay that's it.

right. thank you. that motion passes. do we have any other items on our agenda? there is no further business. okay. we're adjourned. thank you. television

>> in 1948 swensen's ice cream used to make ice cream in the navy and decided to open up an ice cream shop it it takes time for the parent to put money down and diane one of the managers at zen citizen in arena hills open and serve old-fashioned ice cream. >> over 20 years. >> yeah. >> had my own business i was a firefighter and came in- in 1969 her dad had ice cream and left here still the owner but shortly after um, in here became the inc. maker the manager and

lead and branded the store from day to day and in the late 90s- was obvious choice he sold it to him and he called us up one night and said i'm going to sell the ice cream store what you you talking about diane came and looked at the store and something we want to do and had a history of her dad here and growing up here at the ice cream store we decided to take that business on. >> and have it in the family i didn't want to sell it. >> to keep it here in san francisco. >> and (unintelligible). >> share worked there and worked with all the people and a

lot of customers come in. >> a round hill in the adjoining areas loved neither ice cream shop in this area and support russia hills and have clean up day and give them free ice cream because that is those are the people that keep us the opportunity to stick around here four so many years next generations have been coming her 20 er thirty or 40 years and we have the ingredients something it sold and, you know, her dad said to treat the customers right and people will keep on coming back and 75 or 74 years, you know, that is quite an accomplishment i think of it as our first 75 years and like to

see that, you know, going into the future um, that ice cream shop will be around used to be 4 hundred in the united states and all gone equipment for that one that is the first and last we're proud of that we're still standing and people people are you tell people it's been around in 50 years and don't plan on hello again. my name is manuel norris barrera. i'm running for state assembly district 17. i want to extend my deepest thanks

for your support in helping me advance through the primaries. now, as we head towards the general election on november fifth, i need your help more than ever. you continuous support is crucial for us to cross the finish line together. if i haven't earned yet, your vote, i hope to earn through a shared vision for the future instead of dwelling on our differences. let's unite for a shared aspirations. we all san franciscans and want the best for our city. we seek economic stability, safe communities and a bright future for our children. by coming together, we can work towards these common goals and build a stronger and more prosperous san francisco for everyone. as we look around, it's evident that our government is not functioning as efficient and effective as it should. wasteful spending is rampant and taxpayers are footing the bill for inefficiency and mismanagement. but wasteful spending is just one part of the problem. drugs, crime, homelessness are also issues plaguing our communities, particularly here in san francisco. as an ordinary

citizen, i'm deeply committed to making a meaningful change. i believe that true progress comes from the leaders who are accountable and transparent and dedicated for serving the people. if elected, one of my top priority will be to address these pressing issues head on. we cannot afford to ignore the devastating impact of drugs, crime, homelessness and fiscal irresponsibility any longer. thank you for your time and please vote. monroe. norris. state assembly district 17. thank you. hi, i'm catherine stefani and i'm running for the state assembly because it's time we fix california. as a former prosecutor, national gun violence prevention advocate, county supervisor, and mom, i have been unwavering in my

commitment to fighting for safer neighborhoods, health care equity, and housing that's affordable for all californians. residents of san francisco and san mateo county are concerned about keeping their families safe, and they deserve a champion in sacramento. in the assembly, i'll push for state resources to put an end to open air drug dealing. i'll work to ensure that victims of crime have access to the resources they need, and i'll continue to lead on sensible gun legislation to address the senseless violence plaguing our schools and communities. as the bay area grapples with sky high housing costs and homelessness, we must also be steadfast in our work to create the housing our communities so desperately need. one of the best ways to alleviate homelessness, combat climate change and create good union jobs is to make sure we're creating homes where the demand for housing is greatest. and i'll never back down from

protecting our reproductive rights and fighting for access to quality medical care for all. if elected, i'll be the first mom from san francisco to go to the state legislature. and as a mom, i understand how important it is to ensure that future generations can stay and thrive in the communities we love. that all starts by keeping our neighborhoods safe and creating the housing our communities need. you can read more about what i plan to accomplish for the working people and families of san francisco and san mateo county at vote catherine stefani, .com and most importantly, don't forget to vote by november fifth. my name is david lee and i'm

running for california state assembly. you have a chance to choose between two very different candidates in this race. you can elect an establishment politician who is funded by billionaires and special interests, who has overseen the worst decline in the city's history. or you can vote for someone who comes from the community and who will fight for you. and your families. i am an educator who has taught in san francisco for over 20 years at san francisco state. this experience has driven my passion to uplift marginalized community voices. i have helped do that through the nonprofit chinese american voters education committee, where we registered over 100,000 asian americans to vote. i grew up, got married, and started a family right here in the assembly district, 19. san francisco is the greatest city in the world. my wife owns a small business on geary boulevard. my brother and his family live just a few blocks

away from me. we all share a love for this district. as an educator, i see firsthand the issues facing our community. my students can't afford rent. they can't find jobs that pay enough to support their families, and they can't get the education they need to get ahead. i'm running to fight for affordable housing, to fix our ailing economy, and to fully fund our public education system. i'm proudly endorsed by harvey milk democratic club, the san francisco tenants union, aaron peskin, phil ting, mark leno, sandra lee fewer, jane kim and many others. please remember to vote for david lee for assembly district 19. [music]

>> started with a community at the secret gardens is down the block. was about food, culture and it was a success and something we thought we could keep going and yeah, the space opened up and we are like, lelts let's give it a try. we have been artists all our lives and ewoo wanted to continue to do our art and make art accessible. >> we grew up here. i went to school up the street and elementary school down the street. [indiscernible] really important to us and our upbringing, like the location malters. >> this feels like home and for us to be able to contribute to our home and add something and just kind of bring a really fun and artistic vibe to the neighborhood. it is a blessing for us. >> all that is left is creative studio gallery. we have a shop where we sell

merchandise and art and now we are shifting into a creative space and studio where we have different smaller projects with artists we worked with in the past. >> we have workshops and teach monthly classes . >> combines designing and creating and sketching and refineling that and make it in a final product. that is how i got into art. >> i was really interested in the [indiscernible] just being able to capture stories was important to me and my art was make up at the time. i was using color and make up to express my is lf and documenting it. >> we started mostly as a gallery. we throw group art shows or feature local artists and they put art on our walls and we also pop up events. trying to get a network of artists going and creatives going to

get together and just show out and show off and do fun projects. we get to bring people we worked with in the space and to the events and projects and continues to grow. >> our current instillation is [indiscernible] women of the resistance. we were fortunate to have alexa also known as lex-[indiscernible] so, to be able to have her work featured was an honor. really wanted to show [indiscernible] and i think she was really able to capture that. >> we designed a lot of stuff how we are feeling and colors we are vibeing with and that is how we do our creative process. >> we feel we are a beacon in san francisco. i feel we sprelshize in screen printing so if you need something screen printed you can count on us or a art show, you can count on us as well.

[music] book. thank you. >> (music). >> my name is orlando i'm the owner and operator of sf pizza. >> pizza is my expansion growing up i loved pizza and loved to cook and been in corporate banking jobs my that whole life wanted to own a pizza or and moved to san francisco 45 years ago and couldn't find pizza i like so one day of saving and trying to figure out what i would like to do to fulfill my dream and to literally must be that i went out on my own toes an

interesting things skills i again have to working on the slight changes to find the right product and came up with something i enjoy and continue it. so the positive important thing in years and years and years of trying to get it where i like it is for the sauce i use a unique sauce to bring out the flavors have to mats and capital improvement plan any and using use a high quality of cheese the products work together more important to me have a high quality of pizza and made with love and what i try to keep it to be a comfortable foods or food and that's what i try to over and offers so having a

really bus illegal day in the community and rile appeal to me and that's what i was trying to accomplish i have thought when i got into pizza the main thing if i can, make a great cheese pizza he can do anything like growing up that's what i brought to to and now called san francisco te >> (music). >> my name is vet at a original artist based in san

francisco. >> i love it i love it i've never seen something else and we see how the people see which is happening and what is going on. kind of cool i wanted to be part of that. >> i saw it 2, 3, 4, 5 minutes you yeah. >> so we have you - yeah. i started going when i was young but not the type of kid would get food but this is something i really have been progressing on a talent from like other artists. >> this is amazing. >> this is so good yeah, it is

so good like the artists. >> i love it. >> what a great project. >> part of the part for have i grants. >> yeah. i love it. >> i serve in for 2 two years now and i really am fortunate to live in a place for art. >> an effort creating places it serve san francisco soul and that makes them want to see this place; right? with the experience of art in san jose experience in from the get-go sometimes our environmentalist has created tests but we have an opportunity for that and have artists in the storefront part of project you can walk in and

experience and hoping we'll be there for a long time. >> this is the first farther easy way of going to spaces i didn't know how it is really cool it would be and we're forced to be in the moment when we're test and creating something really cool. >> makes us feel good. >> as far (unintelligible) done all temporary and took them down i like the temporary aspect base (unintelligible) (microphone distorted) not permanent can enjoy it.

>> [music]

>> my name is lana. i am part owner of the excelsior coffee. my roll with excelsior coffee is pretty much the [indiscernible] i do a lot of the back-end operating procedures and a lot of customer front facing, a lot of customer outreach, naerbd outreach, but for the most part the coffee is it driving force of the community. i have been here in the excelsior district for 11 years. the idea behind excelsior coffee spouted 6 years ago out of the need for community space and coffee. excelsior coffee to me is a cornerstone of the neighborhood. next to this iconic mural on excelsior along with the legacy businesses. we decided that this corner of san francisco on the southeast side of the mission is the place we like to

be. i know you see a lot of eththetics of motorcycles behind us. a lot of people ask, what's up with the motorcycles behind you? motorcycle and classic cars are a big yite of our upbringing so the idea was to connect to this neighborhood from classic cars to low riders to motorcycles and my husband is is a high school teacher that teaches automotives and history. we love the history of motorcycle engineer and design. for us it was more like a talking point and connection. honoring that and that is also the driving force between who we are and the make-up. i think what separates from other coffee shops is that, we are serving a community that has been here

for a decade before us, and i think it is really special that there is a vortex of non english speaking communities here. between my husband and i, we represent many cultures. i'm [indiscernible] he is black, his mexican and through our cultures is how we connect with people in the excelsior. to speak their languages, and i think honoring our culture background through coffee and pastry. excelsior coffee, we are at 4495 mission street on mission and excelsior in the excelsior district. call excelsior coffee in your face excelsior. we are open 7:30 to 4 p.m. for now. [laughter]

>> i think there would be a lot more suffering. >> if i imagine san francisco without animal care and control, i know there would be thousands of animals

every year who just wouldn't get that chance. whether that means going home with a family, being released in the wild without this concerted thoughtful group focused on all these animals. the big picture view and daily care. so many animals would be lost. >> but i don't think people understand what goes on. they don't know how hard the staff works taking care of animals. >> it is just two people. one upstairs and one downstairs and the cleaning is total, 6, 7ish. one side starts off doing chemical, i close these all off so the dogs can't come in the back, and then i'm going to spray the back, (indiscernible)

>> all the magic to rehome and work with a rescue network and all the medical care and behavioral and enrichment, socialization enrichment, volunteers are amazing. so, i think if i had a waish wish, i wish that san francisco ew more about what we do. >> san francisco animal care and control is a vital part of making sure animals in this community are protected and are cared for. we deal with those domestic and wildlife. one of the primary suction is serve as a shelter. when animals have no where else to go, here is where they come. we take in about 9,000 animals a year and the care they receive here and the ability to move from here if domestic on to permanent homes somewhere else, or if you

are wildlife you come here and we figure which wildlife rehubibitator to send to. that is the shelter aspect. we also have animal control officers who are available from 6 a.m. to midnight. >> ask them to give us a call, that would be great. the number is 415-554-9400, and you can just ask for rebecca. thank you so much. bye. >> we receive approximately 20 thousand calls a year for assistance, so a lot is wildlife rescue, lost dogs, dangerous situations. we also investigate animal abuse, animal neglect. got a lot going on here. >> without us, there would be a lot more (indiscernible) a lot more animals suffering. who would people call? the

police? fire? they have their own jobs and don't have resources or knowledge. they don't know how to help animals. so much hoar suffering. >> we took in 2800 animals last year. without a shelter where do the animals go? i think the community would suffer if we were not here. >> whether living on the street or (indiscernible) animals are very important to people, so we are helping humans also, and we are alleviating a lot of suffering

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.

>> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill.

>> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived

in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department.

>> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive.

>> all right. it is time to eat, people. [music] digital literacy is something severely lacking in our world today and it takes a lot to understand that. food water and shelter have basic necessities so long we forget about wifi and connection to the interenet and when you go into communities and realize peep ople are not able to load homework and talk to teachers and out of touch with the world. by providing the network and system we are able to allow them to keep up in the modern age. >> folks still were not served by internet throughout the city and tended to be

low income people, people in affordable housing. people of color and limited english and seniors, all those are high concentrations in affordable housing, so we thought given that we had a fiber network that stretched throughout the city reaching deep into neighborhoods that would be a perfect opportunity to address it in san francisco. >> the infrastructure the city and star help us run are dejtle programs. it played a critical role from the time we opened during covid till now so we were able to collaborate with online services that offer tutoring and school support. it also helped us be able to log the kids on for online school during covid, in addition to like, now that everybody has switched most of their curriculum online we can log kids on to the online homework, check grades

in addition to helping parent learn how to use the school system portm >> the office of digital equity our goal fiber to housing is insure we have all three legs of the 3 legged stool. the first leg is high quality internet connection. we liken the high quality internet connection to the highway. the second leg is high quality devices. this is the car. you want to make sure the specks on the car is up to speed and lastly, it is important to get kind of that driver's education to learn how to navigate the road, to know the signs to watch out for in terms of making sure you are school while you are surfing the internet it is private so that is the digital literacy piece. >> my daily life i need the internet just to do pretty much

everything. the internet has taken so much control over people's daily lives including myself that i just need it to get certain jobs done, i need it for my life. i need it. >> the program really seeks to where ever possible provide a service that's equivalent or higher speed and quality as the best commercial service . >> we serve all of san francisco, but we definitely have to be equitable in our distribution of services. that means everybody gets what they need to be successful. >> actually one of the most gratifying part of my work here at department of technology, it is really bringing city resources to address problems faced with our communities with the highest need. >> i think it is important because i grew up in a low income community without internet access and it is hard. i think it is important for everyone to have internet access no matter their

income and maybe one day their kid will have internet access for us and help the school and with their skills. [music] >> sarah duncan the honeer chef here. alexa and i own this location today. we are wem omen in business. we started this location in san francisco about 5 years ago, and

previous--had a kitchen in the back on geneva avenue. we moved over here about two years into that venture and opened this one november of 2019. i grew up in east texas and [indiscernible] bbq venture and wanted to do something different here which is our new orlean style. gentilly is a district in new orlens that remeans we of the excelsior. [indiscernible] i lived out here for 17 years. alexa also lived in the neighborhood and we wanted to stay in excelsior. we think people enjoy. there isn't a lot ofication food left in the city. there used to be before covid so we wanted to do something the city wasn't already flooded with. gumbo is your traditional style

new orleans style stew. we have a nice dark rich broth. pulled chicken, shrimp [indiscernible] the other popular items are fried chicken, a grilled mac and cheese. cajun green beans. number two seller. san francisco is a special city. it got a very big food driven industry. it is very hospitality friendly. i feel like especially in the restaurant industry, me being a chef it is a pretty male dominant world out there, and i think it is really special the two of us have been able to come together as women and open this restaurant four months to the day before shutdown and keep the doors open still.

we put a lot of love into this place. we try to make it feel you are walking into someone's living room where you are comfortable. we are at 482 mission street. welcome to check our lovely environment and have a cocktail >> good morning. i call the meeting of the commission thursday, september 19, 2024, to order at 1:05 a.m. >> call the roll. >> president anderson here. >> vice president hallisy here. >> commissioner clark-herrera here. >> please tonight that who commissioners have